Hacker News Reader

As opposed to? Unless you're actually going to read individual papers, vet the authors, have the baseline statistical knowledge to understand the results, etc, you're always going to be susceptible to potential misinformation. This HN topic is a good example of the difficulty of verifying information.

Who's to say that ChatGPT doesn't provide a better job of filtering it out?

View on HN

Yes, I would start with Google Scholar, or at least Wikipedia because it tries to provide sources for each statement that it makes.

> Who’s to say that ChatGPT doesn’t provide a better job of filtering it out?

No one because no one knows what sources ChatGPT is blending together in its sentences.

> I would start with Google Scholar

You actually should vet everything you read through Google Scholar too. There is a pervasive belief of consensus in academic science and unfortunately individually verifying information is the only thing we know that actually works- not political consensus.

Because ChatGPT assembles letters into words and sentences without attribution and so is untrustworthy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com